Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-08

toed 10 them by the Bill Of Rights. Thia IL n
threat 10 DO an injury 10 stranger unless ne
win do an injury 10 Baughman Brothers,
against whom he has no cause Of complaint
This II a threat TO party that unless he Will
cooperate with the conspiratOra and assist them
TO iDjure, ruin, break up, and destroy the bust
ness OF Baughman Brothers, that they will DO
oil I'm their power 90 break up and destroy MS
business. Even though they meant that they
would break up aud destroy the business OF the
customers by competition, yet, II those thrests
we're Intended and reasonably calculated 70
have the effect Of inumidating or forcing the
perfon 20 whom they were made into doing
on act injurious 20 another, which 10 was
his will and legal right not 10 do, they are un-
lawful.
to excite violent resentment, and thus produce
a disturbance Of the pence have always been
held indictable.
TIE JUDGES OPINION.
am clearly Of tho opinion that the charges
in the FIRST count Of the Indictment constitute a
crime at common law.
In stating the threats made by the cOnspira-
tors the indictment charges the means 70 be
used as fully as they were known. This Is a
charge q conspiracy. and the means could
only be gathered from the threats, which were
to do sn In their power 10 break up and De
atrOy. That Is what IL ey said, and that Is Whai
they are charged with. What they afterwards
did can only be referred 20 in agRravation Of
the offence, and cannot be taken into consideTa-
tlon I'm determining the sufilclency OF the i'll
diciment. ] therefore overruie the demurrer
as 20 the first count.
/ have stated verbally my reasons for sus-
tanning the demurrer 20 the second count
Judge weIIford's Opinion.
Judge Wexford, of the City Circuit
Court, Yesterday Overruled the demur-
rer to the declaration in the case Of
Baughman Brothers rs. Richmond
Typographical Union, No. 80, for
$50, coo damages.
The declaration Of Mr.. Royal as
counsel for Raughman Brothers charges
that the Boycott Committee, represent
ing the whole Union OF seventy-fOur on
more members, issued and sent TO the
patrons OF Baughman Brothers a print
ed circular informing them that the as
sociatiOn had bOycotted the establish
ment of the plaintiffs; that the Gus
toners of plaintiffs were requested to
withdraw their patronage from the plain
tilIs and warned that if they did not com
plywith this demand and inform the de-
PENDANTS thereof within ten days after
the issuance Of the circular their names
would be published on the BLACK list
in the LGbOr HCr0ld; that by reason OF
threats contained in this circular and il
the publication of the "black list I'M
der an offensive head, and other publ
cations in the LaJOr Ucrdid, many oI
the plaintiffs customers have been III
timidated and deferred from trading
with the plaintiffs, by reason whereof
they lave sustained great damage.
Mr.. Meredith, as counsel for the
Union, demurred to the entire declara
tion as not settiyg out sufficient caust
of action, claiming that if there had
been threats made they were lawful
ones.
Judge Wexford, in his opinion
which is an elaborate as well as inter
esting one, gives a brief history of th'
case. and dwells at some length upon
the pivotal word boycott, and main
tains the ground that the circular wa
construed by Baughman Brothers Gus
toners as alleged in the declaration
and holds that i'll looking at the con
text it very clearly appeared to then
that the boycott was coercive mea
sure to compel the plaintiffs to acqui
esce in the demand of the defendants
In concluding Judge Wexford says:
Upon on honest examination. therefore, O
| the context Of the circular and inquiry into th
| origin Of its pivotal word. who can say that
| not very timid customer OF the plainuls mlgA
not have under 'ood IL as intended 20 convey
threat OF physical violence, II necessary, 10 en-
| force his withdrawal OF patronage from IN
| plnintifs, and might not, therefore, have Oeei
| intimidated from further dealings with them
| The declaration charges that many OF thei
| customers did 30 understand II, aud were 20 lu
| timidated. II that charge be true, and thei
| customers. upon a reasonable Interpretation @
| the circular and the publications in the Lam
| HfrGid, which the circular adopted a. part O
| the context were justified in 20 believing, IN
| defendants, upon undisputed principles OF laW
are responsible for the consequences
| In overrullng the demurrer it IA not necesssT
/ for me 10 say that this Interpretation was
| reasonable one. ! feel very sure in my oW
mind that violence wAs not contemplated b
these defendants. and certainly not by Ia
large majority of them. But | cannot say tha
violence might not reasonably have been IN
ferred from their concerted action as SET on
| In the declaration.
Win the views which | have presented il I
| not necessary for me TO express any Opinion
upon this demurrer as TO several matters O
| contention in the argument OF counsel or q
| aualyZe the cases cited. II tnOSe matters ar
| presented upon the trial il viii be time enOugl
! then TO consider them. But in falling to eX
/ press any opinion now do not desire 10 be uil
| derstood as concoding that IL Is essential &
| the plaintiffs right Of action % show tha
| threats Of physical force or personal violeno
| were made against the customers OF the PLAIN
| tifis. All Of the cases cited and the argumen
| i'm behalf Of the defendants cOncSde that !
! such threats were made there is cause OF a.
! tion, and IL is enough that think the declarn
| ton abundantly sufficient TO allow the plain
| tiffs 20 produce evidence 10 jury that sucl
| threats we're made or understood TO have bee
| made and that by reason thereof the friend
| and customers Of plaintiffs were intimidatc
| from dealing with them.
| As another ground OF demurrer, II was sue
| gested that the damages alleged 10 have bee
| sustained were too remote and uncertain I'M
| objection Is clearly untenable. The declaration
| does nOs ailege damage merely by the pre-
| vention of a probable future trade, but by IN
| destruction Of al existing profitable trade
| There is no element Of speculation or coniln
| gency involved In the present loss Of valuabl
\ patronage. The circular Of the defendants al
| dressed overy customers a. patron, and clearl
| contemplated his withdrawal OF his dealing
| with the plaintiffs a. an immediate damage .
| ,hcir business The declaration alleges sue
| damage as the cause Of aciOn-and think.
| proven 10 the satisfaction Of jury II Is sun
| Cient
| lam. therefore. OF opinion that the demurre
| should be Oyeiruled.
1